Custen Reading

Upon the completion of Custen’s “BIO/PICS: How Hollywood Constructed Public History,” I needed to take a bit of time to reflect. Although refreshingly easy to read following the Barthes text, there was a LOT of information in this document. It would take quite a while to address all of the intricacies and examples put forth in this article, and it would be boring and redundant to summarize it, so at best I can discuss a few of the piece’s more general points.

For one, I immediately noticed Custen’s desire to create formulas and equations for all of his arguments. In particular, he talks about a formula that can be used to ensure the would-be success of a biopic. By reducing the bulk processes of the film industry to mere matters of business and marketing (citing “product differentiation,” “consumerism,” etc.), Custen lays out the blueprints for any filmmaker aspiring to create a successful, yet hassle-free, biographical picture. He first identifies, in his opinion, the quintessential biopic, which happens to be Disraeli. He then breaks down the film into its bare “formal elements” and “narrative elements.” Once these elements can be isolated and defined, he treats them as variables that can be substituted/replaced/exchanged at the filmmaker’s discretion. If George Arliss is successful in Disraeli, he should be able to be packaged and sent off to the studio to create a string of biopics that, by his mathematic reasoning, should be equally as successful. The same can be said for the time periods of the pieces. If one film set in the Elizabethan period proves to be profitable, a succession of films set in this same time period should, theoretically, be equally as lucrative (supposing the proper research is done by the studios that put them out). Even directors can be commoditized, as evidenced in the career of William Dieterle, which was marked by a prolific chain of biopics for Warner Bros. (and eventually MGM and Paramount).

Custen also notes the importance of slapping a seal of authenticity upon each of the arbitrarily produced biographical pictures. For one, the studio must seek employees and a bloated budget to satisfy the audience’s need for historical research to be done. It is not enough to watch Susan Hayward prance around on screen, the audience must actually learn something as well. The theater-going experience, though entertaining, needs to be sufficiently educational. A movie’s critical praise could only go as far as its historical accuracy could take it. Audiences were attentive to small glitches and inconsistencies, and if there were even a small detail left unattended to, riots would ensue. As a result, there were steps that could be taken to ensure that the film would be “sold” to its audiences as real. Of course, the most obvious, the patronizing “the following is a true story,” so forth, etcetera. You could also employ the same person to play a recurring role in a number of films that feature the same historical figure. One may even look to give the real live person a part in the film, as either a central character or in a small cameo. This may, however, be an actual disappointment to some movie-goers (after watching the antics of Keira Knightley as Domino Harvey in the film Domino, images of the real reformed stripper in the end, as she attests to the films accuracy, seemed to be a small let-down).

I can’t say I completely disagree with Custen on all of his points, but there are things that I have to differ on. In my mind, films are made to evoke a certain emotion or feeling from their viewers. Additionally, they may fabricate new ideas in the audience’s mind, painting a picture of something that may or may not exist. Either way, a film can be enjoyable regardless of its historical accuracy. And to think that there is a definite formula that all biographical films fall under, simply to generate profit, is a condescending truth for viewers. I, personally, would rather see Julia Roberts in a Wonder-Bra than the real Erin Brokovich. I am not taking anything away from the real woman, but in certain arenas (i.e. film), she simply does not belong. Does the fact that Julia Roberts and Erin Brokovich look nothing alike worsen my attitude toward the particular film? No. In The People vs. Larry Flynt, I would much rather watch Woody Harrelson play the role of the publisher than the man himself. That’s his job. Larry Flynt’s cameo performance as the Ohio judge wasn’t mandatory for my approval of the film, it was simply ironic and humorous. Unless I read Custen completely wrong, I think that he goes against one of the most important aspects of film: innovation. As I read the article, he dotes on the need for filmmakers to understand and apply a formula, when in reality, they should be going against the grain and creating different kinds of viewing experiences. If anything, the conventions he mentions should be broken more often, to create a piece that’s not prototypical (the documentary feel of Natural Born Killers made it seem like a nonfiction piece; this is obviously not an educational viewing experience, but it’s a different one).